From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932325AbWAJURu (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:17:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932557AbWAJURu (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:17:50 -0500 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([193.197.184.2]:45737 "EHLO mail.inka.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932325AbWAJURt (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:17:49 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:17:47 +0100 From: Bernd Eckenfels To: Jens Axboe Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2G memory split Message-ID: <20060110201747.GA26433@lina.inka.de> References: <43C3E9C2.1000309@rtr.ca> <20060110194200.GD3389@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060110194200.GD3389@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 08:42:00PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > Hmm I thought it was obvious with the description in paranthesis after > the option. Basically the option is just an optimized default for 1GB of > RAM, like the 2G option is tailored for 2GB of low mem on a 2GB machine. The description was (for full 1Gb Low Memory) and not (optimized for 1GB physical RAM) which would be more obvious, yes. However the text could still explain the consequences. Gruss Bernd